5. Species Accounts
5.18. Eastern Whip-poor-will Species Account
USFWS Region 3 status: conservation concern AOU number: 4170
AOU abbreviation: EWPW
SUMMARY
T
otal vulnerability for Eastern Whip-poor-will (Whip- poor-will) was high, scoring 3.2 out of 5.0. The adaptive capacity category was the largest contributor to vulnerability. This was driven by a high degree of habitat specialization throughout the year (Whip- poor-wills require woodlands), a specialized diet of aerial insects (especially moths), and a high breeding site fidelity. However, there is very little information on breeding site fidelity limiting our ability to draw conclusions about Whip-poor-will vulnerability. In addition, we have no information on diet during the non-breeding season. Though it is probably composed of aerial insects, knowledge of which aerial insects are preferred would help conservationists understand the Whip- poor-will’s needs and limitations. This knowledge gap also limited our capacity to assess the indirect effects of climate change. Temperature increases on the UMGL breeding grounds were predicted to have large effects on vulnerability, while drying on the Mexican non-breeding grounds was predicted to have a large effect (Figure 5.50). We had very little connectivity information on Whip-poor-wills from banding data and no breeding to non-breeding encounters originating from the UMGL region (Figure 5.51). We also found no information on migratory connectivity from the literature. For this reason, we were unable to measure migratory connectivity with the UMGL, and we maintained a broad approach in our vulnerability analysis. In general, we lack basic knowledge of Whip-poor-wills during the non-breeding season and this may hinder our ability to manage and conservethem. Work on the non-breeding grounds would greatly improve our
understanding of vulnerability for the species. As with the USFWS Region 3 status, we found the species to be at risk. Aerial insectivores are among the most imperiled species (COSEWIC 2009, Nebel et al. 2010) and the current declines may only be exacerbated by climate change.
VULNERABILITY SCORES
Total Vulnerability
Breeding climate effect
subscore NB climate effect
subscore Adaptive
capacity subscore
Indirect effects subscore
Background subscorerisk Temperature
change Moisture
change Temperature
change Moisture change
3.2 3.2 2.4 2.4 3.5 4.3 2.0 3.7
(maximum score of 5 for all columns)
0 1 2 3 4 5
UMGL
N. America
Mexico
C. America
Temperature exposure × sensitivity score Breeding Non-breeding
*
0 1 2 3 4 5
UMGL
N. America
Mexico
C. America
Moisture exposure × sensitivity score Breeding Non-breeding
Figure 5.50. Eastern Whip- poor-will subscores for climate exposure × sensitivity, breeding (Jun – Aug) and non- breeding regions (Dec – Feb).
*Non-breeding score ≥ 20%
greater than breeding.
113
Figure 5.51. Eastern Whip-poor-will banding data from USGS Bird Banding Laboratory. The UMGL breeding range is shown in green. There were no breeding to stationary non-breeding encounters originating from the UMGL.
Figure 5.52. Mid-century (2040-2069) climate exposure during winter (Dec – Feb) on the Eastern Whip-poor-will’s non-breeding grounds (main maps) and during summer (Jun – Aug) on its breeding grounds in the Upper Midwest Great Lakes LCC (inset maps).
CLIMATE EXPOSURE
5.18. Eastern Whip-poor-will Species Account
i. Background Risk
• Quasi-extinction risk Unknown (species not well surveyed by BBS methods)
• Breeding PIF conservation (score = 3.7)
• Non-breeding PIF conser-
vation (score = 3.5)
ii. Adaptive Capacity
• Migration strategy (score = 3.0) Non-migrant, short-distance migrant, long-distance migrant (mean distance = 1358 km)
• Breeding habitat niche
specialization (score = 4.5) Macro habitats deciduous forest, woodland (no understory, open canopy, including sec- ond-growth/logged); nesting micro habitat ground with leaf litter and near vegetation (0 m high)
• Breeding diet niche spe-
cialization (score = 4.2) Aerial insects (crepuscular and nocturnal, especially moths); captured by aerial foraging in woodlands and along roads
• Breeding site fidelity (score = 5.0) No data but may be high
• Non-breeding habitat
niche specialization (score = 5.0) Mixed woodlands
• Non-breeding diet niche
specialization (score = unknown) No data available iii. Climate Sensitivity
• Breeding thermal range (score = 2.5) 12.1° C
• Breeding precipitation
range (score = 3.0) 83 cm
• Non-breeding thermal
range (score = 2.0) 15.1° C
• Non-breeding precipitation
range (score = 4.0) 53 cm
iv. Climate Exposure (mid-century predictions)
• Summer (Jun – Aug)
UMGL temperature (score = 4.0) 2.9° C increase
• Summer (Jun – Aug)
UMGL moisture (score = 2.0) 4.4% drier
• Winter (Dec – Feb)
non-breeding temperature Entire non-breeding range (score = 3.0) 1.9° C increase N. America (score = 2.0) 1.8° C increase Mexico (score = 3.0) 2.0° C increase C. America (score = 2.0) 1.8° C increase
• Winter (Dec – Feb)
non-breeding moisture Entire non-breeding range (score = 3.0) 6.3% drier N. America (score = 1.0) 3.3% drier Mexico (score = 4.0) 9.2% drier C. America (score = 1.0) 3.9% drier v. Indirect Effects
• Breeding habitat vulner-
ability (score = 1.5) Some vulnerability of deciduous forest, particularly in the southern USA, though may expand range in the north (USFS 2013); very little vulnerability of woodlands, which are predicted to either remain stable or increase in area (Bachelet et al. 2001, Goulatowitsch et al. 2009, USFS 2013)
• Breeding biotic interaction
vulnerability (score = 3.5) Although there is little evidence that aerial insectivores will suffer from phonological mis- match (e.g. Dunn et al. 2011), there may be moderate to high vulnerability for Whip-poor-wills because they are more particular in the timing of their foraging during crepuscular and nocturnal hours
• Non-breeding habitat
vulnerability (score = 1.0) Very little vulnerability of temperate woodlands (see above); very little vulnerability of dry tropical woodlands also as these habitats may increase in area (Khatun et al. 2013);
• Non-breeding biotic inter-
action vulnerability (score = unknown) No data
USFWS Region 3 status: conservation concern AOU number: 4060
AOU abbreviation: RHWO
SUMMARY
T
otal vulnerability for Red-headed Woodpecker was moderate, scoring 2.0 out of 5.0. The adaptive capacity category was the largest contributor to vulnerability, suggesting that climate change-related factors might be a priority. This was driven primarily by their high degree of site fidelity and tendency to return to the same breeding territories year after year. Temperature increases and drying on the UMGL breeding grounds were predicted to have moderate effects on vulnerability. In contrast, climate on the non-breeding grounds was not predicted to have much effect. This was because (1) Red-headed Woodpeckers were relatively insensitive totemperature change during the winter and because (2) moisture change on the woodpecker’s non-breeding grounds in N.
America was predicted to be very small (1.8% change from current conditions, Figure 5.54). We had very little connectivity information on Red-headed Woodpeckers from banding data with only three
breeding to non-breeding encounters from the UMGL (Figure 5.53). We also found no information on migratory connectivity from the literature. For this reason, we were unable to measure migratory connectivity with the UMGL, and we maintained a broad approach in our vulnerability analysis.
VULNERABILITY SCORES
Total Vulnerability
Breeding climate effect
subscore NB climate effect
subscore Adaptive
capacity subscore
Indirect effects subscore
Background subscorerisk Temperature
change Moisture
change Temperature
change Moisture change
2.0 2.8 2.8 0 0 3.0 1.4 2.2
(maximum score of 5 for all columns)
Red-headed woodpeckers excavate their own cavities and do not use nest boxes © Luanne Brooker